In the last couple days, some highly reputable sources have been highlighting the union movement’s disillusionment with Barack Obama. New York Times labor journalist Steven Greenhouse (one of the few remaining in the field) reported on the issue in today’s paper, emphasizing the negative affect an alienated labor movement could have on Democratic chances in the 2010 elections.
Because unions have been so crucial to the Democrats election after election, political experts say labor’s ambivalence, or worse, toward the Democrats could greatly deepen that party’s woes this fall.
Unions aren’t going to abandon their only political allies. It just isn’t going to happen, at least on the executive level. Where else could unions turn? They certainly aren’t going to start supporting Republicans (PATCO tried that in 1980, and look how they ended up: dead) and doing nothing would amount to the same thing.
No matter how disillusioned and cantankerous labor leaders become, they will still throw their endorsements and their money behind Democrats. Consider the 1994 midterms, two years after the election of Bill Clinton. Labor backed Clinton in 1992, pumping tens of millions of dollars into his campaign. They particularly liked his stance against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a piece of legislation that industrial unions feared would result in the outsourcing of high-wage manufacturing jobs. But after Clinton was elected he changed his tune, throwing all of his muscle behind passing NAFTA. Labor leaders were appalled and threatened to slow, even end, their support for Democrats in the next elections if the bill passed, which it did in 1994.
Did union political action funds drop off as a result of Clinton’s betrayal? Barely. Labor’s monetary support of Democrats in 1994 dropped to $48.9 million, a mere $700,000 less than in the 1992 election. In 1996, when Clinton was up for reelection, union support for Democrats shot up to $60.6 million.
If NAFTA, which arguably lost almost 1 million high-paid working class jobs, didn’t completely sour labor on the Democrats, nothing will. But as Greenhouse points out, the real Dems bigger problem may be the membership (in 2008 Obama beat McCain by 18 points among white male union members, the numbers were almost exactly reversed for white, male nonunion members). That’s the real question: will labor still be able to get the rank-and-file to the polls?
Correction: I incorrectly stated that Clinton opposed NAFTA in the 1992 primaries. Actually, Clinton said he would support the treaty, but he played to labor and the environmentalists by saying he would only support it if provisions were included to protect U.S. jobs, Mexican workers and the environment. He didn’t follow through. For more details see comment 8.
Liberals’ motto seems to be “if at first you don’t succeed, fuck it”. Anyone who thought that you just push a button and like magic progressivism prevails everywhere doesn’t understand what kind of world they live in. Obama does understand, because he’s up against the limits of what’s possible every hour of every day. Our opponents are fighting us with everything they have, and contrary to how they are often portrayed they are very sophisticated when it comes to fighting. Which is why they are kicking our asses.
The answer is not to give up and start bleating like a newborn lamb, it’s to FIGHT BACK.
Labor will still get behind candidates they perceive to be pro-labor, pro main street policies–in AR, the AFL-CIO and SEIU have thrown their support behind Senatorial candidate Bill Halter against incumbent Blanche Lincoln.
lame. the absence of energy is a huge factor. what “labor” contributes isn’t just money, it’s grass roots volunteers, hordes of steelworkers (for ex.) acrost mnichigan and illinois and ohio getting their gun totin’ comrades to the polls and convincing them to vote for the harvard professor guy.
when they don’t feel well loved, they don’t do that and our side loses votes.
have you noticed that we lost in VA NJ and MA?
check out realclear polls.
It might be worthwhile to note reality, then act based on reality, instead of puff pieces in the “what me worry?” vein.
I wish Fnarf’s comment @1 could fit on a bumper sticker.
I could be wrong but I remember Clinton supported NAFTA even in the primaries. As I remember it, he was the ONLY Democrat in the primaries who supported NAFTA, and though he was not very popular or well known he got early endorsements from the party establishment. Again, I could be wrong. That was many drug-fueled years ago.
i am so tired of the democratic party assuming that the “ol’ standards” will just support them. Unions, gays, we routinely get the short end of the stick, get obvious and shallow lip service, told to “wait our turn”, but are still expected to donate our money and time for a party that does shit for us. I’m not claiming that the republican party would do any better, they won’t, but maybe it’s time to withhold money and time so we will be taken seriously.
I think Fnarf is mostly right here, but it’s hardly fair to characterize the unions as giving up because one election didn’t change everything overnight. Unions have been getting the shaft year after year by the Democratic Party. Yet the Republicans are so much worse there’s nowhere else to go.
@5 You aren’t wrong, I am. My statement: “They particularly liked his stance against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)…” was inaccurate. What I should have said was that in the run-up to the election he said he would support NAFTA only on the condition that worker’s rights, fair pay, and environmental protections were included in the bill. “I’d be for expanded trade with Mexico…but only, only if they lifted their wage rates and their labor standards and cleaned up the environment so we could both go up together instead of being dragged down,” as he said in San Diego circa 1992. Of course, once he was sitting in the White House, all those considerations went out the window.
Still, you are correct. My mistake, I’ll fix it.
The PATCO strike is almost funny. The endorse Reagan and then he effectively destroys their union. If other unions hadn’t been weakened by that it would be hilarious.
In Georgia when Republican Sonny Perdue ran against incumbent Dem Roy Barnes during the 2002 election, the teachers unions all sided with Perdue, because Barnes was trying to enact some regulations making teachers accountable (while giving them raises every year). One of the first things the Republican Perdue did was to freeze all teachers’ state-funded salaries. They still get shafted on pay, and Perdue for this year and last year has forced unpaid furlough days on them. I knew teachers who supported Perdue and then got pissed about losing raises. I used to laugh in their faces and ask them what did they expect?
Unions will support those candidates who support their issues. Democratic candidates or Republican. Granted there will be more individual Ds then Rs gaining support, but the days of supporting a party as a whole are almost entirely over.
The democratic party can bitch and moan all they want, but if their leadership suddenly decided to pass a bunch of anti-choice legislation would anyone be surprised that NARAL withheld support?
What’s likely to happen is what the WA State Labor Council has already done: instead of just handing one big check over to the national DPCC every election cycle, they’ll instead target specific candidates for funding. Those candidates that show strong support for labor and working families issues will get checks; those that don’t won’t. And the party central committees will no longer be able to leverage their “middle man” status. It’ll mean more work for both the labor orgs and the candidates themselves, but on the plus side it means labor will be able to throw their weight into specific races, districts and candidates who will actually support the kind of legislation to which far too many Dems simply pay lip-service.
@ 4 – How about condensing it to “Obama does understand”?
Of course, many tailgaters will assume the sticker’s intent is ironic.
Unions may be frustrated with the Dems, but implying they’ll drop them is a little sensational. It’s like saying gays will start voting for the GOP because of the Dem’s inaction on their issues.
Like it or not, the Democrats are the only game in town for unions. Well, the only ones that can get elected.